Toggle sidebar

GDT: #69 - 03/16/14 | San Jose Sharks @ New York Rangers | 4:00 - MSG

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kane One said:
I don't have to. You're the one who should provide proof to overturn the call on the ice. The onus is on you, not me.
Click to expand...

I can prove it. The absence of an object in one place proves the presence of that object in another. Unless of course you are trying to argue that that object magically disappeared and was in neither place. I don't know, but I wouldn't want to be the person arguing that.
 
Going forward I feel Rangers need to identify in the draft, free agent market or search out the Juniors or colleges and sign a solid, dominant goal scoring center. It will cost but it needs to be done.
That will help solve so many of the problems we have now.
 
Bird Law said:
Maybe it's not proof on some other planet where the NHL uses flexible pucks where it is actually possible for the puck to be behind the post and not across the line. Or physics just doesn't exist on that planet.

I assume that this planet also denies goals when the puck is in the goalie's equipment and the goalie has slid into the net (since, you know, the NHL has awarded goals in that scenario numerous times).
Click to expand...

Yes, they have because in that scenario, it's a fact the puck was in the net. In this case, it is not a fact, no matter what you want to believe... unless you actually believe people in Toronto are biased towards the second richest team in the league and does not want them to win an important game vs. a team who plays in San Jose. Yeah, that makes sense.
 
TigerJack said:
If the rules state that they have to see the puck and the goal line to have conclusive evidence, why did they review it in the first place? And why did it take so long?
Click to expand...

Most likely because they knew the puck was in the net. But they were scrambling to find the right camera angle to find it conclusive.

There should be a net camera, but it could be that Nemi's skate was blocking the angle.
 
Kreider said:
The puck slid behind the post. That's the goal.

Niemi blocked the camera's view, but that doesn't change the puck being in the net.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you can assume (no, not even assume, you KNOW it's in the net) but there isn't a top down angle showing the puck in the net, past the red line.

That's the only way Toronto will ever call it a goal. Thus, it's inconclusive.
 
GWOW said:
The ENTIRE puck has to be over the goal line.
Click to expand...

And, as said countless times now, it's physically impossible for the puck to not be across the line once it's behind the post like that. It's just impossible. There's no .001% chance that it's not all the way across the line. There's no margin of error. It's actually impossible.
 
OverTheCap said:
Yet another game where I am dazzled by the dominance of Nash and MSL.

It actually seems like our scoring woes have gotten even worse since the acquisition of MSL. Only in Rangerstown...
Click to expand...

I like how Sam said Marty scored 4 against the Sharks last time he played them ...the way it's looking, I'm wondering if Marty will score 4 goals total as a Ranger.
 
Machinehead said:
Which is why the conclusive video evidence rule sucks, but it's the rule.



Yes they could actually see it.

butt-goal-elite-daily.jpg
Click to expand...
Okay, I stand corrected. Still a bs rule :P
 
Kane One said:
Sorry, but that's not proof. Just because it looks over the line because it was behind the post doesn't mean it's behind the line. Just like an overhead camera of the goal line, it's possible it's an illusion.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Sharks have lost at least 5 goals this year from similar issues.

It's extremely likely that the puck was in, and common sense tells you it went in. However, the NHL requires clear and conclusive evidence that it is across the line without any possibility of doubt. There is a chance, however unlikely, that the puck upon going behind the post in the video was hugging the back end of the goal line and never crossed it completely.

Again, the NHL requires absolute proof to overturn the call, and since there is a possibility, however remote, the puck didn't cross the line they couldn't overturn it.
 
I'm not sure if it was a bad call so much as a HORRIBLE HORRIBLE rule. Just excruciatingly bad. Why can't common sense or more importantly the laws of physics be enough? Ridiculous.
 
NCRanger said:
Isn't the puck coming OUT of the goal on the MSG replay conclusive evidence that the puck had to be IN the goal?

How many is that now? 4 or 5 goals taken from the Rangers this season by replay.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a video showing the puck completely over the line. You can assume it, especially with Niemi pulling the puck forward with his pad. However there isn't 100% proof.
 
InwoodBlueNYC said:
Going forward I feel Rangers need to identify in the draft, free agent market or search out the Juniors or colleges and sign a solid, dominant goal scoring center. It will cost but it needs to be done.
That will help solve so many of the problems we have now.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately trading two picks in the St. Louis trade def won't help that process but I agree w you. Our centers are a joke compared to the top teams in the league
 
SnarkAttack said:
Exactly. The Sharks have lost at least 5 goals this year from similar issues.

It's extremely likely that the puck was in, and common sense tells you it went in. However, the NHL requires clear and conclusive evidence that it is across the line without any possibility of doubt. There is a chance, however unlikely, that the puck upon going behind the post in the video was hugging the back end of the goal line and never crossed it completely.

Again, the NHL requires absolute proof to overturn the call, and since there is a possibility, however remote, the puck didn't cross the line they couldn't overturn it.
Click to expand...

I see you also don't believe in simple physics.
 
In an effort to "get it right" the refs are allowed to wave off goals if they were scored while a ref intended to blow a whistle yet in a case of a clear goal for the rangers they defy common sense and undermine their own credibility, however little it may be.

Their is either corruption or incompetence at work here. I wonder if it were the leafs what the call would be .....
 
Maybe they're only allowed to use the overhead and in-net cameras to review goals?

I went back and both the overhead (obviously) and in-net cameras do not show conclusive evidence.

wYVURbl.jpg
 
SnarkAttack said:
Exactly. The Sharks have lost at least 5 goals this year from similar issues.

It's extremely likely that the puck was in, and common sense tells you it went in. However, the NHL requires clear and conclusive evidence that it is across the line without any possibility of doubt. There is a chance, however unlikely, that the puck upon going behind the post in the video was hugging the back end of the goal line and never crossed it completely.

Again, the NHL requires absolute proof to overturn the call, and since there is a possibility, however remote, the puck didn't cross the line they couldn't overturn it.
Click to expand...

Why are you on the Rangers board?

We all know what the opinion of Sharks fans is in this case. We don't need your input.
 
With all the cameras in Toronto they don't have one angle where they can see the puck that has actually crossed the line? If they are going to want conclusive evidence they need better camera placement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom